[__ Darwin __] Something to think about

[brother Paul]

Darwin was convinced that the direction of evolution was demonstrated in that simpler forms became more complex forms over long periods of time. He predicted we would find that small successive changes led to the development of all organs as well as to the more complex and higher organisms.

Not being privy to all that we can observe today he theoretically rejected the idea of developmental changes occurring relatively quick. Even the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium would have been rejected as it could not and did not demonstrate what Darwin was predicting we should find, and now after witnessing the phenomena of the seemingly sudden appearance of some already complex creatures having all their subsystems in place and functional (like Nautilus itself) we must admit that at least on this point Darwin was incorrect.

Read, “Evolution, You’re Drunk (DNA studies topple the ladder of complexity)” in the January 2018 issue of Nautilus ( http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk )

The article opens by pointing out that “...amoebas are made of just one cell, researchers assumed they would be simpler than humans genetically. Plus, amoebas date back farther in time than humans, and simplicity is considered an attribute of primitive beings. It just didn’t make sense.”

But why, one may ask? Why doesn’t it make sense? Well because as they point out amoebas have 100s of times more DNA than higher primates. As well we have found that allegedly higher order systems are actually present in some cases prior to the lesser complex ones. Finally in another scenario we can see that some complex features devolve and then return later (Whiting, M. F., Bradler, S. & Maxwell, T. “Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects”, Nature 421, 2003). So what’s happening to the tree? It’s beginning to rot at its base.

 

[Jim Parker]

Darwin was convinced that the direction of evolution was demonstrated in that simpler forms became more complex forms over long periods of time. He predicted we would find that small successive changes led to the development of all organs as well as to the more complex and higher organisms.

Not being privy to all that we can observe today he theoretically rejected the idea of developmental changes occurring relatively quick. Even the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium would have been rejected as it could not and did not demonstrate what Darwin was predicting we should find, and now after witnessing the phenomena of the seemingly sudden appearance of some already complex creatures having all their subsystems in place and functional (like Nautilus itself) we must admit that at least on this point Darwin was incorrect.

Read, “Evolution, You’re Drunk (DNA studies topple the ladder of complexity)” in the January 2018 issue of Nautilus ( http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk )

The article opens by pointing out that “...amoebas are made of just one cell, researchers assumed they would be simpler than humans genetically. Plus, amoebas date back farther in time than humans, and simplicity is considered an attribute of primitive beings. It just didn’t make sense.”

But why, one may ask? Why doesn’t it make sense? Well because as they point out amoebas have 100s of times more DNA than higher primates. As well we have found that allegedly higher order systems are actually present in some cases prior to the lesser complex ones. Finally in another scenario we can see that some complex features devolve and then return later (Whiting, M. F., Bradler, S. & Maxwell, T. “Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects”, Nature 421, 2003). So what’s happening to the tree? It’s beginning to rot at its base.

Or our understanding of what DNA does is incomplete.
In fact, that's what the article states. We really don't know that much about how DNA does what.
So, our very meager understanding of DNA is proof of absolutely nothing about the Theory of Evolution.
Unhappily for YECs, the report of evolution's death has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[brother Paul]

Or our understanding of what DNA does is incomplete.
In fact, that's what the article states. We really don't know that much about how DNA does what.
So, our very meager understanding of DNA is proof of absolutely nothing about the Theory of Evolution.
Unhappily for YECs, the report of evolution's death has been greatly exaggerated.

I agree.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Here is something that I don't understand about DNA...... where did it come from?

Even if you had been given all the enzymes and proteins that are necessary..... and, of course, got a "get one free life for your organism" card at the local puddle stop.....complete with ribosomes, mitochondria, centrosomes, a nucleolus inside a pre fabricated and delivered Nucleus and cytoplasm... as a preferred customer bonus......
Where did the DNA come from? Who organized it?

 

[Jim Parker]

Here is something that I don't understand about DNA...... where did it come from?

Even if you had been given all the enzymes and proteins that are necessary..... and, of course, got a "get one free life for your organism" card at the local puddle stop.....complete with ribosomes, mitochondria, centrosomes, a nucleolus inside a pre fabricated and delivered Nucleus and cytoplasm... as a preferred customer bonus......
Where did the DNA come from? Who organized it?

I read a book by a biologist a couple of decades ago. He stated that the

 

[brother Paul]

I read a book by a biologist a couple of decades ago. He stated that the

Going to finish the statement...

 

[Jim Parker]

Going to finish the statement...

What happened to the rest of the post????????
I'll try again in a bit.

 

[Jim Parker]

OK Once more...
I read a book by a Ph.D. biologist a couple of decades ago. (I think it was called, Science knows Nothing about Evolution)
He stated that the DNA strand is made up of thousands of amino acids.
The amino acids were made up of four atoms forming a 3-sided pyramid.
The pyramids could be formed by 2 different arrangements of the atoms.
If polarized light is shined through the amino acids, one type would rotate the plane of the polarized light 90 degrees to the left and the other 90 degrees to the right.
In order to function is an alive creature, all of the thousands of amino acids have to be left-rotating.
If only one molecule were right-rotating, the DNA would not function.
The probability of that randomly happening one time was 1 times 10 to the minus 80.
Statistically, 10 to the minus 12 is considered the point of impossibility.

I hope this all gets through this time

iakov the fool

 

[brother Paul]

Got it thanks

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin was convinced that the direction of evolution was demonstrated in that simpler forms became more complex forms over long periods of time. He predicted we would find that small successive changes led to the development of all organs as well as to the more complex and higher organisms.

Even in his day, he had his critics on that point. Huxley, for example, pointed out to Darwin that it was at least possible for rapid evolution to take place, given Darwin's main points of his theory. Darwin did realize that evolution would move at different paces, but thought that it would always be by incremental means.

Not being privy to all that we can observe today he theoretically rejected the idea of developmental changes occurring relatively quick. Even the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium would have been rejected as it could not and did not demonstrate what Darwin was predicting we should find,

There's a confusion between pacing and mode of evolution. Eldridge and Gould also agreed with Darwin on the incremental nature of evolution, but picking up from Mayr's observation that unusual species tended to be in isolated places, suggested that most species have long periods of stasis, followed by rapid (but normally incremental) periods of evolution. This is why Gould referred to himself as an "orthodox Darwinian."

and now after witnessing the phenomena of the seemingly sudden appearance of some already complex creatures having all their subsystems in place and functional (like Nautilus itself) we must admit that at least on this point Darwin was incorrect.

Actually, cephalopods like the nautilus were preceded by simpler mollusks, such as scaphopods, which are anatomically intermediate between cephalopods and other mollusks.

The article opens by pointing out that “...amoebas are made of just one cell, researchers assumed they would be simpler than humans genetically. Plus, amoebas date back farther in time than humans, and simplicity is considered an attribute of primitive beings. It just didn’t make sense.”

But why, one may ask? Why doesn’t it make sense? Well because as they point out amoebas have 100s of times more DNA than higher primates.

The amount of DNA in an organism really isn't an index of complexity, because all organisms have more or less amounts of non-coding DNA that aren't genes, but still exist. And today's amoebae are as modern as we are, having evolved for the same amount of time, in their own direction. However, the smallest eukaryotic genome is in a single-celled organism:

The smallest eukaryotic genome known to date is that of the protist Encephalitozoon intestinalis, a parasitic microsporidian with a genome size of only 2.3 million base pairs, which is smaller than that of many bacteria (Vivarès and Méténier 2000).
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/06/some-big-and-small-genomes/

So is the largest eukaryotic genome, over a billion base pairs in the amoeba Chaos chaos. As you see, the size of the genome has nothing to do with complexity.

 

[brother Paul]

Even in his day, he had his critics on that point. Huxley, for example, pointed out to Darwin that it was at least possible for rapid evolution to take place, given Darwin's main points of his theory. Darwin did realize that evolution would move at different paces, but thought that it would always be by incremental means.



There's a confusion between pacing and mode of evolution. Eldridge and Gould also agreed with Darwin on the incremental nature of evolution, but picking up from Mayr's observation that unusual species tended to be in isolated places, suggested that most species have long periods of stasis, followed by rapid (but normally incremental) periods of evolution. This is why Gould referred to himself as an "orthodox Darwinian."



Actually, cephalopods like the nautilus were preceded by simpler mollusks, such as scaphopods, which are anatomically intermediate between cephalopods and other mollusks.



The amount of DNA in an organism really isn't an index of complexity, because all organisms have more or less amounts of non-coding DNA that aren't genes, but still exist. And today's amoebae are as modern as we are, having evolved for the same amount of time, in their own direction. However, the smallest eukaryotic genome is in a single-celled organism:

The smallest eukaryotic genome known to date is that of the protist Encephalitozoon intestinalis, a parasitic microsporidian with a genome size of only 2.3 million base pairs, which is smaller than that of many bacteria (Vivarès and Méténier 2000).
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/06/some-big-and-small-genomes/

So is the largest eukaryotic genome, over a billion base pairs in the amoeba Chaos chaos. As you see, the size of the genome has nothing to do with complexity.

Thanks for kicking in even though I thought it was closed....

In my studies it can be observed that some creatures actually suddenly appear with no predecessors (like the bat) and yes size of the genome has nothing to do with complexity of the organism, but it also has nothing to do with the presumed genealogy belief (as in evidencing a lineal relationship). This is a presupposed belief through which the evidence is interpreted to confirm.

They say it is inferred but according the scientific method's definition of inferring, this is a form of reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation. Therefore, as I see it, that assumption is not founded on real science, though it is the shared opinion (as was taught to them) of most scientists today. It is a form of confirmation bias (something many YECs are guilty of as well)....but that is just my $.02....

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks for kicking in even though I thought it was closed....

In my studies it can be observed that some creatures actually suddenly appear with no predecessors (like the bat)

Hmm... bats, I'm not familiar with. Let's see...

Earliest bat fossil reveals transition to flight
A spectacular bat fossil from Wyoming has everything one could want in want …
...The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that make Onychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage. The authors argue that the configuration of its limbs, combined with the claws, suggests that it would be powerful climber, able to easily scramble around trees when not flying.
...
The fossil's teeth indicate that Onychonycteris ate insects, but its ear is probably too small to support echolocation. This supports the "flight first" model of bat evolution, and suggests that it probably hunted visually. Unfortunately, the eye sockets of the sample aren't well preserved, so that remains conjecture. Beyond this one bit of damage, however, the find is stunning for what it tells us about the gradual evolution of the traits that have made the bats the exceptional mammals that they are.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/
Nature, 2008. DOI: 10.1038/nature06549

and yes size of the genome has nothing to do with complexity of the organism, but it also has nothing to do with the presumed genealogy belief (as in evidencing a lineal relationship).

There's two lines of evidence for this. First, DNA analyses recreate the family tree first noted by Linneaus (who was not an evolutionist) to a very high precision. Second, we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent. Turns out, it's true.

This is a presupposed belief through which the evidence is interpreted to confirm.

It's been tested and confirmed. Once the structure and function of DNA become known, the reason for it became clear.

They say it is inferred but according the scientific method's definition of inferring, this is a form of reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation.

For example, the relationship of whales to ungulates was predicted, based on anatomical data. Only after the function of DNA made it clear how genes work, scientists then tested that prediction. If whales were closely related to ungulates, then whale DNA should be most closely matched to that of ungulates.

And when the hypothesis was tested, it was confirmed.

That's how science works. If it hadn't confirmed the prediction, then evolutionary theory would have had a lot of problems to resolve. But it did confirm the prediction.

 

[Razeontherock]

You're describing religious beliefs.

 

[brother Paul]

Hmm... bats, I'm not familiar with. Let's see...

Earliest bat fossil reveals transition to flight
A spectacular bat fossil from Wyoming has everything one could want in want …
...The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that make Onychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage. The authors argue that the configuration of its limbs, combined with the claws, suggests that it would be powerful climber, able to easily scramble around trees when not flying.
...
The fossil's teeth indicate that Onychonycteris ate insects, but its ear is probably too small to support echolocation. This supports the "flight first" model of bat evolution, and suggests that it probably hunted visually. Unfortunately, the eye sockets of the sample aren't well preserved, so that remains conjecture. Beyond this one bit of damage, however, the find is stunning for what it tells us about the gradual evolution of the traits that have made the bats the exceptional mammals that they are.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/
Nature, 2008. DOI: 10.1038/nature06549



There's two lines of evidence for this. First, DNA analyses recreate the family tree first noted by Linneaus (who was not an evolutionist) to a very high precision. Second, we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent. Turns out, it's true.

It's been tested and confirmed. Once the structure and function of DNA become known, the reason for it became clear.

For example, the relationship of whales to ungulates was predicted, based on anatomical data. Only after the function of DNA made it clear how genes work, scientists then tested that prediction. If whales were closely related to ungulates, then whale DNA should be most closely matched to that of ungulates.

And when the hypothesis was tested, it was confirmed.

That's how science works. If it hadn't confirmed the prediction, then evolutionary theory would have had a lot of problems to resolve. But it did confirm the prediction.

Onychonycteris? A bat! Thanks for making my point.

“we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent.” True proving that bats come from early ancestral bats. Thanks again.

“For example, the relationship of whales to ungulates was predicted, based on anatomical data. Only after the function of DNA made it clear how genes work, scientists then tested that prediction. If whales were closely related to ungulates, then whale DNA should be most closely matched to that of ungulates.”

Uh huh! Ungulates. A classification man made up to group a bunch of different creatures so as to fit their theory. Contrived real evidence I not actual evidence except for those whose opinions have been shaped. All mammalian DNA is closely matched depending on the program created to find similarities that basically deletes or ignores the many more differences (GIGO).

And more closely as opposed to what? Birds? Fish? Insects?

 

[Barbarian]

Onychonycteris? A bat!

Actually, not quite a bat, as we define it today, but close. Unlike bats, it has claws on all digits, short arms and long rear legs. A very capable climber, which could at least glide from tree to tree. So transitional between climbing mammals and bats. Which nicely fulfills another prediction of evolutionary theory.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/

As you see, it's precisely what they told you couldn't exist; a transitional form between climbing mammals and bats.

Barbarian observes:
There's two lines of evidence for this. First, DNA analyses recreate the family tree first noted by Linneaus (who was not an evolutionist) to a very high precision. Second, we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent. Turns out, it's true.

True

Yep. So DNA phylogenies are demonstrably correct, because of those checks on known descent.

proving that bats come from early ancestral bats.

Transitionals between climbing mammals and true bats. As you see, this particular organism has characteristics of both, which is exactly what was predicted; a transitional between climbing mammals and bats.

Barbarian observes:
For example, the relationship of whales to ungulates was predicted, based on anatomical data. Only after the function of DNA made it clear how genes work, scientists then tested that prediction. If whales were closely related to ungulates, then whale DNA should be most closely matched to that of ungulates.

Uh huh! Ungulates.

Perissodactyls, to be precise. Would you like to know how we know?

A classification man made up to group a bunch of different creatures so as to fit their theory. Contrived real evidence

The classification was done by scientists prior to Darwin. However, DNA analysis now confirms the common ancestry of perissodactyls:

All mammalian DNA is closely matched depending on the program created to find similarities that basically deletes or ignores the many more differences (GIGO).

You've been misled about that. The actual degree of difference between these groups by analysis of DNA closely matches phylogenies based on anatomy. Every now and then we get a surprise. For example, New World and Old World vultures were considered to be an ingroup, but DNA analysis and other factors suggest that New World vultures evolved from storks and Old World vultures evolved from raptors.

And more closely as opposed to what?

Whales are more closely related to perissodactyl ungulates than to artiodactyl ungulates, for instance.

 

[Razeontherock]

Actually, not quite a bat, as we define it today, but close. Unlike bats, it has claws on all digits, short arms and long rear legs. A very capable climber, which could at least glide from tree to tree. So transitional between climbing mammals and bats. Which nicely fulfills another prediction of evolutionary theory.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/

As you see, it's precisely what they told you couldn't exist; a transitional form between climbing mammals and bats.

Barbarian observes:
There's two lines of evidence for this. First, DNA analyses recreate the family tree first noted by Linneaus (who was not an evolutionist) to a very high precision. Second, we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent. Turns out, it's true.



Yep. So DNA phylogenies are demonstrably correct, because of those checks on known descent.



Transitionals between climbing mammals and true bats. As you see, this particular organism has characteristics of both, which is exactly what was predicted; a transitional between climbing mammals and bats.

Barbarian observes:
For example, the relationship of whales to ungulates was predicted, based on anatomical data. Only after the function of DNA made it clear how genes work, scientists then tested that prediction. If whales were closely related to ungulates, then whale DNA should be most closely matched to that of ungulates.



Perissodactyls, to be precise. Would you like to know how we know?



The classification was done by scientists prior to Darwin. However, DNA analysis now confirms the common ancestry of perissodactyls:

You've been misled about that. The actual degree of difference between these groups by analysis of DNA closely matches phylogenies based on anatomy. Every now and then we get a surprise. For example, New World and Old World vultures were considered to be an ingroup, but DNA analysis and other factors suggest that New World vultures evolved from storks and Old World vultures evolved from raptors.



Whales are more closely related to perissodactyl ungulates than to artiodactyl ungulates, for instance.

You are not discussing what is "demonstrably true," as claimed. You are discussing findings that make a specific theory plausible, that's all. And it is far from the only theory that fits the evidence; it's not even the theory that fits the evidence best. You might look at infinite gradualism, for instance.

 

[Barbarian]

You are not discussing what is "demonstrably true," as claimed.

As you see, the fossil is demonstrably transitional between climbing mammals and bats. Would you like me to review those transitional characteristics again?

You are discussing findings that make a specific theory plausible, that's all.

Since the theory predicted such a transitional form before it was found,that's powerful confirmation.

And it is far from the only theory that fits the evidence;

It's the only theory that predicted the find before it was found. Yes, it's always possible to come up with a way to fit one's own assumptions to evidence after the fact. But that isn't very convincing, is it?

 

[brother Paul]

Actually, not quite a bat, as we define it today, but close. Unlike bats, it has claws on all digits, short arms and long rear legs. A very capable climber, which could at least glide from tree to tree. So transitional between climbing mammals and bats. Which nicely fulfills another prediction of evolutionary theory.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/

As you see, it's precisely what they told you couldn't exist; a transitional form between climbing mammals and bats.

Barbarian observes:
There's two lines of evidence for this. First, DNA analyses recreate the family tree first noted by Linneaus (who was not an evolutionist) to a very high precision. Second, we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent. Turns out, it's true.



Yep. So DNA phylogenies are demonstrably correct, because of those checks on known descent.



Transitionals between climbing mammals and true bats. As you see, this particular organism has characteristics of both, which is exactly what was predicted; a transitional between climbing mammals and bats.

Barbarian observes:
For example, the relationship of whales to ungulates was predicted, based on anatomical data. Only after the function of DNA made it clear how genes work, scientists then tested that prediction. If whales were closely related to ungulates, then whale DNA should be most closely matched to that of ungulates.



Perissodactyls, to be precise. Would you like to know how we know?



The classification was done by scientists prior to Darwin. However, DNA analysis now confirms the common ancestry of perissodactyls:

You've been misled about that. The actual degree of difference between these groups by analysis of DNA closely matches phylogenies based on anatomy. Every now and then we get a surprise. For example, New World and Old World vultures were considered to be an ingroup, but DNA analysis and other factors suggest that New World vultures evolved from storks and Old World vultures evolved from raptors.



Whales are more closely related to perissodactyl ungulates than to artiodactyl ungulates, for instance.

Actually, not quite a bat, as we define it today, but close. Unlike bats, it has claws on all digits, short arms and long rear legs. A very capable climber, which could at least glide from tree to tree. So transitional between climbing mammals and bats. Which nicely fulfills another prediction of evolutionary theory.


No a bat. Merely an early variety now appearing to be extinct.


The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage. As you see, it's precisely what they told you couldn't exist; a transitional form between climbing mammals and bats.

The problem here is that on the one hand you (and they) separate them from bats based on allegedly shorter front limbs (anatomical variation is common in all species...for example long beaks/short beaks in passerines, or narrow feet /wider flat feet in Blackcaps which are merely common environmental adaptations of speciation) and then claim it would be what is expected to be between (transitional) with non-bat mammals with long front arms (your sloth assumption). Even the brainwashed (not you) should be able to see the fallaciousness of such an assumption.

Barbarian observes:
There's two lines of evidence for this. First, DNA analyses recreate the family tree first noted by Linneaus (who was not an evolutionist) to a very high precision. Second, we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent. Turns out, it's true.

The first statement is the result of confirmation bias (interpreting through or to fit the pre-assumed conclusion) and yes I already agreed that “we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent” and this PROVES that modern bats descended from earlier varieties of bats.

Yet somehow Barbarians observation conveniently ignores the agreement (and the thanks I gave for demonstrating exactly what I have said by providing YOUR example).

So DNA phylogenies are demonstrably correct, because of those checks on known descent.

Take away the pre-held assumption and no it does not...it shows these early bats (for which we have very little of any DNA evidence and you KNOW that) were ancestral to modern bats nothing more.


Transitionals between climbing mammals and true bats. As you see, this particular organism has characteristics of both, which is exactly what was predicted; a transitional between climbing mammals and bats.

Nope! Even when you use this false engineered hypothesis based re-definition of the term “transitional” it shows no such “Shared characteristic” (shorter front limbs, i.e., smaller WINGS do not demonstrate transition from longer ARMS which is the point YOU made as the example)

Barbarian observes:
For example, the relationship of whales to ungulates was predicted, based on anatomical data. Only after the function of DNA made it clear how genes work, scientists then tested that prediction. If whales were closely related to ungulates, then whale DNA should be most closely matched to that of ungulates.


Repeating the same error in reasoning does not make your assessment sound. As pointed out Ungulates is a fictional grouping intentionally made up by an outside intelligence in order to be able to group a bunch of different creatures in order to fit the (preconceived) theory. In other words the evidential conclusion is contrived, thus an example of the definition provided for inferring (an interpretation based on pre-held assumption based conclusion and circumstantial evidence) .

And again while repeating this does not mean it is true we know it is from the science of programming (and from any programmer worth their salt - GIGO)...All mammalian DNA is closely matched depending on the program created to find similarities that basically deletes or ignores the many more differences (again GIGO).

New World and Old World vultures were considered to be an ingroup, but DNA analysis and other factors suggest that New World vultures evolved from storks and Old World vultures evolved from raptors.

Ah huh huh, ahhh huh huh...wow!

To hopefully clarify your vague assumption based conclusion I asked “And more closely as opposed to what? And then you compare certain ALLEGED ungulates (pseudo sci fi in the first place) with assumed to be separate ungulates....wow...that’s convenient. Comparing one made up grouping and another made up grouping (selection bias) both designed (by an intelligence) to explain that which could cause one to question, in order to appear to support the already held and insisted on belief (hence confirmation bias).

Wow!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, not quite a bat, as we define it today, but close. Unlike bats, it has claws on all digits, short arms and long rear legs. A very capable climber, which could at least glide from tree to tree. So transitional between climbing mammals and bats. Which nicely fulfills another prediction of evolutionary theory.

No a bat. Merely an early variety now appearing to be extinct.

Nope. Doesn't have all the characteristics of bats, and it has some of the characteristics of other climbing mammals. It's a transitional between bats and climbing mammals.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage. As you see, it's precisely what they told you couldn't exist; a transitional form between climbing mammals and bats.

The problem here is that on the one hand you (and they) separate them from bats based on allegedly shorter front limbs (anatomical variation is common in all species...for example long beaks/short beaks in passerines, or narrow feet /wider flat feet in Blackcaps which are merely common environmental adaptations of speciation)

The key is that bats don't have some of the characteristics of this animal. So it's transitional. You could also call it a climbing mammal, since it is anatomically more equipped to climb than to fly. I get the idea. If it had no wings at all, then "it's obviously not a transitional form; no wings", and if it has very small wings, "it has wings, so it has to be a bat."

It's not a very good argument, but one does with what one has, I suppose. Even the brainwashed (not you) should be able to see the fallaciousness of such an assumption.

Barbarian observes:
There's two lines of evidence for this. First, DNA analyses recreate the family tree first noted by Linneaus (who was not an evolutionist) to a very high precision. Second, we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent. Turns out, it's true.

The first statement is the result of confirmation bias (interpreting through or to fit the pre-assumed conclusion)

No, that's wrong. Linnaeus didn't even realize what his family tree meant. It predicted common descent. He thought it meant something like "the great chain of being", and was puzzled when other things like minerals didn't form the same nested hierarchy. His tree predicted common descent. DNA analyses were one way to test that prediction, and validated it.

and yes I already agreed that “we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent” and this PROVES that modern bats descended from earlier varieties of bats.

It goes a long way beyond that. The same technique that shows all bats to have a common ancestor shows this:

So DNA phylogenies are demonstrably correct, because of those checks on known descent.

Take away the pre-held assumption and no it does not...

Your assumption doesn't exist. Numerous people noted that organisms fit nicely into a family tree. When genetics was discovered, the reason for this was understood. DNA function predicted that closely related organisms would have more similar DNA, a prediction that was validated by comparing those of known descent. It was then predicted that DNA analyses would confirm the family tree first noted by Linnaeus. And that prediction was also verified.

it shows these early bats (for which we have very little of any DNA evidence and you KNOW that) were ancestral to modern bats nothing more.

It also shows them to be transitional between climbing mammals and bats, with some characteristics of each.

Transitionals between climbing mammals and true bats. As you see, this particular organism has characteristics of both, which is exactly what was predicted; a transitional between climbing mammals and bats.

Nope!

Yep. It has relatively short arms and relatively long legs. It retains claws on all digits, along with longer legs, making it a rather capable climbing animal, that could at least glide short distances, and possibly fly a little. Couldn't echolocate, though, and it wouldn't have been very maneuverable, due to the long legs and tail. But it was a perfect transitional between climbing animals and bats.

Even when you use this false engineered hypothesis based re-definition of the term “transitional” it shows no such “Shared characteristic”

See above.

Barbarian observes:
For example, the relationship of whales to ungulates was predicted, based on anatomical data. Only after the function of DNA made it clear how genes work, scientists then tested that prediction. If whales were closely related to ungulates, then whale DNA should be most closely matched to that of ungulates.

Repeating the same error in reasoning does not make your assessment sound. As pointed out Ungulates is a fictional grouping intentionally made up by an outside intelligence in order to be able to group a bunch of different creatures in order to fit the (preconceived) theory.

That's a testable claim. And as you see, DNA analysis shows the relationships. What happens is when you are able to test affinities, sometimes DNA shows you surprising things. For example, whales were initially thought to be descended from perissodactyls. But DNA analysis shows them to be descended from artiodactyls (even-hooved mammals). And later fossil finds, such as Indohyus confirmed that analysis.

Barabarian gives an example.
New World and Old World vultures were considered to be an ingroup, but DNA analysis and other factors suggest that New World vultures evolved from storks and Old World vultures evolved from raptors.

Ah huh huh, ahhh huh huh...wow!

Yep. And it cleared up a number of other odd inconsistencies, based on anatomical similarities. Convergent evolution, but only where it mattered for a scavenger.

To hopefully clarify your vague assumption based conclusion I asked “And more closely as opposed to what? And then you compare certain ALLEGED ungulates (pseudo sci fi in the first place) with assumed to be separate ungulates....wow...that’s convenient.

As you see, the data is quite clear on this. And it explained a lot of things about whales, like having an ungulate digestive system, horizontal flukes instead of vertical tail fins, and so on.

 

[brother Paul]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, not quite a bat, as we define it today, but close. Unlike bats, it has claws on all digits, short arms and long rear legs. A very capable climber, which could at least glide from tree to tree. So transitional between climbing mammals and bats. Which nicely fulfills another prediction of evolutionary theory.

Nope. Doesn't have all the characteristics of bats, and it has some of the characteristics of other climbing mammals. It's a transitional between bats and climbing mammals.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage. As you see, it's precisely what they told you couldn't exist; a transitional form between climbing mammals and bats.

The key is that bats don't have some of the characteristics of this animal. So it's transitional. You could also call it a climbing mammal, since it is anatomically more equipped to climb than to fly. I get the idea. If it had no wings at all, then "it's obviously not a transitional form; no wings", and if it has very small wings, "it has wings, so it has to be a bat."

It's not a very good argument, but one does with what one has, I suppose. Even the brainwashed (not you) should be able to see the fallaciousness of such an assumption.

Barbarian observes:
There's two lines of evidence for this. First, DNA analyses recreate the family tree first noted by Linneaus (who was not an evolutionist) to a very high precision. Second, we can test the idea that genetic relatedness shows common descent, by checking the genes of organisms of known descent. Turns out, it's true.

No, that's wrong. Linnaeus didn't even realize what his family tree meant. It predicted common descent. He thought it meant something like "the great chain of being", and was puzzled when other things like minerals didn't form the same nested hierarchy. His tree predicted common descent. DNA analyses were one way to test that prediction, and validated it.

It goes a long way beyond that. The same technique that shows all bats to have a common ancestor shows this:

So DNA phylogenies are demonstrably correct, because of those checks on known descent.

Your assumption doesn't exist. Numerous people noted that organisms fit nicely into a family tree. When genetics was discovered, the reason for this was understood. DNA function predicted that closely related organisms would have more similar DNA, a prediction that was validated by comparing those of known descent. It was then predicted that DNA analyses would confirm the family tree first noted by Linnaeus. And that prediction was also verified.

It also shows them to be transitional between climbing mammals and bats, with some characteristics of each.

Transitionals between climbing mammals and true bats. As you see, this particular organism has characteristics of both, which is exactly what was predicted; a transitional between climbing mammals and bats.

Yep. It has relatively short arms and relatively long legs. It retains claws on all digits, along with longer legs, making it a rather capable climbing animal, that could at least glide short distances, and possibly fly a little. Couldn't echolocate, though, and it wouldn't have been very maneuverable, due to the long legs and tail. But it was a perfect transitional between climbing animals and bats.

See above.

Barbarian observes:
For example, the relationship of whales to ungulates was predicted, based on anatomical data. Only after the function of DNA made it clear how genes work, scientists then tested that prediction. If whales were closely related to ungulates, then whale DNA should be most closely matched to that of ungulates.

That's a testable claim. And as you see, DNA analysis shows the relationships. What happens is when you are able to test affinities, sometimes DNA shows you surprising things. For example, whales were initially thought to be descended from perissodactyls. But DNA analysis shows them to be descended from artiodactyls (even-hooved mammals). And later fossil finds, such as Indohyus confirmed that analysis.

Barabarian gives an example.
New World and Old World vultures were considered to be an ingroup, but DNA analysis and other factors suggest that New World vultures evolved from storks and Old World vultures evolved from raptors.

Yep. And it cleared up a number of other odd inconsistencies, based on anatomical similarities. Convergent evolution, but only where it mattered for a scavenger.

As you see, the data is quite clear on this. And it explained a lot of things about whales, like having an ungulate digestive system, horizontal flukes instead of vertical tail fins, and so on.

DNA function predicted that closely related organisms would have more similar DNA, a prediction that was validated by comparing those of known descent.

So because we share 99% in common with mice and only 95% in common with Chimps that logic dictaes we SHOULD conclude a MORE LIKELY relationship (and a closer one) with mice.

Now then you (the convinced) say, “Couldn't echolocate” while the very scientists you got that from said their finding implied it “PROBABLY” could not echolocate can you see the honest admission of the plausibility factor? He is admitting he could be incorrect and maybe they could by this PROBABLY but you on the other hand swallowed it as a fact (though it is not REALLY evidenced) and are trying to convince me. However I have no problem if this early bat could not echolocate as we understand it today but seeing deaf people do this with totally different ears lets me be honest and say he may also be incorrect.

And you should know I am well aware pf how your camp (the convinced) has altered the meaning of the term transitional so they can vacillate from the original intention of the word’s use in your camp’s earlier published writings (which meant “in-between” or one from the other). I am not stupid...your camp has done this with many words they once used that were proven incorrect in their original use and application.

“whales were initially thought to be descended from perissodactyls. But DNA analysis shows them to be descended from artiodactyls (even-hooved mammals). And later fossil finds, such as Indohyus confirmed that analysis.”

Which only makes sense to one who already swallows whole the historical narrative created that they evolved from land animals (instead of your own standard explanation which would indicate or predict the other way around (from the sea to the land). And I understand the other way could not be contrived from the evidence so it had to be reversed and then made to appear that that is what was always believed (but it was not). And such actions do not imply honest self correction, but rather manipulation of interpretation to support the already believed presupposition.

Indohyus proves NOTHING other than they have similarities in their DNA (just as we do with mice). Simple pure reason with no motive reveals this. There is the data we actually have and then there is the constructed story we are told to support the hypothesis (not because the story it is real). In fact the original researchers use words and phrases like COULD, MIGHT, or WE BELIEVE THAT, and other such subjunctive language that once again the convinced seemingly ignore and swallow the camel whole then present the PLAUSIBILITY as if it is a fact. When all it is an opinion based on an inference from circumstantial evidence and previously held assumption based conclusions.

“like having an ungulate digestive system, horizontal flukes instead of vertical tail fins, and so on”

Again I cannot believe you so easily fall for this:

• Ungulates (especially Indohyus) do not have flukes at all, and
• Dolphins also have horizontal flukes to make them perfectly suited to their environment and purpose (POSSIBLY developed via adaptation)
• And lots of creatures share similar digestive systems...so what that does not mean one is the cousin of the other nor that one came from the other (just that they share workable and efficient systems as part of the design fitted to their purpose) that is a pre-held belief
• So their “digestive system” is not “an ungulate digestive system” just a similar one
• In fact if the standard Darwinian model was predicting correctly it COULD INDICATE (an equal plausibility) that ungulates have a whale digestive system not the other way around. Using assumption based conclusionism it is equally plausible that the later ungulates evolved from whales (after all they share a lot of whale DNA and have similar whale digestive systems) though if we go by the fossils they both appear around the same time...50 mya.